In Van Jones’ words:
“Now, I had always dreamed that I would revel in such a riot. But I didn’t. I got a safe ride home … and wept.

I cried because at that Moment — when some Great Revolutionary Leader was supposed to have emerged from the crowd, grabbed the megaphone, spoken to our hearts and hopes, set out our program to overthrow the old order and build a new one — nobody had anything to say.

…

Let’s be clear: the riots were understandable, unavoidable, even necessary — but they were not laudable. Los Angeles’ great self-immolation, and its mini-versions elsewhere, give us nothing to cheer about.

These rudderless insurrections were a sad indictment of us all: of the State, for its failure to provide justice and opportunity — and of the Left, as well, for our inability to point out a path that might someday guarantee that justice, ensure that opportunity.

These riots were not revolution; without revolutionary values and revolutionary organization, they were merely sharp outcroppings of the systemic chaos that social injustice breeds. But flashpoints of rage can never substitute for radical social vision or grassroots coordination.

….

Therefore, standing in the ashes and rubble of Los Angeles, we must blame ourselves as much as the state. We must recognize that our opposition has become ideologically, tactically and morally bankrupt.

As we rebuild that proud city, let us also build a radically feminist, anti-racist, green and humanitarian people’s movement — complete with a revolutionary theory that will both describe our dilemma AND point a way out.”

My point was that people like VanJones are making the tension worse by his remarks, and his radicalism should disqualify him.

There are minorities on both sides, like Chang, who are working to defuse the situation. They work for civil rights but not by demonizing the opposition…

Dare I say that such Black and Asian leaders are showing they have true Confucian values?